To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

,-!
j J
6
KANSAS CONTROVERSY.
>n
i-j
a
d
i,
d
y
h
e
d
e
tr
3
The Senate, as in Committee ofthe Whole, having under
consideration the bill to authorize the people of the Territory of Kansas to form a constitution and State government,
preparatory to their admission into the Union, when they
have the requisite population—
Mr. GEYER said: Mr. President, my position, as the sole representative of the people of
Missouri in this Chamber, will not permit me to
decline a participation in a debate which has no
other attractions for me. I engage in it, therefore, as a work of necessity rather than one of
taste and inclination. The circumstances under
which it was inaugurated indicate the purpose to
make political capital out of the disturbances in
Kansas, with a view to the pending elections,
State and Federal. In such a controversy I could
have no disposition to engage here in the Senate;
but the debate has embraced questions of enduring interest, of the legislative history and power
of Congress in respect to the Territories, the constitutional and political relations of the States
and people of this Union towards each other, and
their reciprocal obligations and duties, as well as
of the events in Kansas since the organization of
the government in that Territory. Upon some
of these topics I intend to address the Senate,
and especially on those which more immediately
concern the people of Missouri.
All agree that there have been disturbances in
Kansas, but we disagree as to their origin, nature,
and extent. The honorable Senator from New
Hampshire [Mr. Hale] opened this discussion
by a bold denunciation of the President of the
United States as the instigator of mob violence
in Kansas. This was followed by the Senator
from Massachusetts, [Mr. Wilson,] the Senator
from Illinois, [Mr. Trumbull,] and the Senator
from Iowa, [Mr. Harlan,] in an attempt to throw
on the people of Western Missouri the entire
responsibility for these disturbances.
The subject having been referred to the Committee on Territories, we have two reports. That
of the minority is founded on theory, differing
from all others, and affirms that the acts of all
parties engaged in the disturbances were justifi
able under the temptations presented by the Kansas-Nebraska act; or, in other words, that the responsibility for all the acts of violence which have
been committed or threatened rests with the Congress which passed that act. On the other hand,
the majority report places the responsibility where
I am disposed to place it—upon those who operate at a safe distance, and expose themselves to
none o{ the dangers of the strife which they
foment and promote.
Mr. President, the minority report undertakes
to apologize for my constituents, as well as for
those who engaged in the contest at the instigation or under the patronage of associations in the
other States, but does it on an assumption that I
cannot admit, and I feel a stronger desire to vindicate them against that apology than all else which
has been said in this Chamber. I cannot agree
that they have yielded to a temptation, which it
is said this law presented, and the encouragement
it gave to acts of violence and disorder; and that
they have been unable to restrain themselves
when unprovoked by assaults from another quarter; nor will I consent to accept for them a defense
intended for their assailants, and which for that
purpose only, regards the acts of both parties as
justifiable, if not praiseworthy.
In order to sustain the conclusions of the minority report, its author goes back a great distance, and brings under review " the action of
Congress in relation to all those thirteen Territories" which are now States of the Union, and
affirms that " it was conducted on a uniform principle to settle by a clear provision the law in relation to the subject of slavery, by which it was
expressly prohibited or allowed to remain, not
leaving it in any one of those cases open to controversy—that this was done under a power too
clear to be doubted, and resulted in securing peace
and prosperity—that by the act of the 6th of
March, 1820, a contract was made that Missouri
should be admitted without prohibition, and
slavery forever abolished in the rest of the territory
ceded by France, north and west of that State—
that under this arrangement Missouri was admitted

,-!
j J
6
KANSAS CONTROVERSY.
>n
i-j
a
d
i,
d
y
h
e
d
e
tr
3
The Senate, as in Committee ofthe Whole, having under
consideration the bill to authorize the people of the Territory of Kansas to form a constitution and State government,
preparatory to their admission into the Union, when they
have the requisite population—
Mr. GEYER said: Mr. President, my position, as the sole representative of the people of
Missouri in this Chamber, will not permit me to
decline a participation in a debate which has no
other attractions for me. I engage in it, therefore, as a work of necessity rather than one of
taste and inclination. The circumstances under
which it was inaugurated indicate the purpose to
make political capital out of the disturbances in
Kansas, with a view to the pending elections,
State and Federal. In such a controversy I could
have no disposition to engage here in the Senate;
but the debate has embraced questions of enduring interest, of the legislative history and power
of Congress in respect to the Territories, the constitutional and political relations of the States
and people of this Union towards each other, and
their reciprocal obligations and duties, as well as
of the events in Kansas since the organization of
the government in that Territory. Upon some
of these topics I intend to address the Senate,
and especially on those which more immediately
concern the people of Missouri.
All agree that there have been disturbances in
Kansas, but we disagree as to their origin, nature,
and extent. The honorable Senator from New
Hampshire [Mr. Hale] opened this discussion
by a bold denunciation of the President of the
United States as the instigator of mob violence
in Kansas. This was followed by the Senator
from Massachusetts, [Mr. Wilson,] the Senator
from Illinois, [Mr. Trumbull,] and the Senator
from Iowa, [Mr. Harlan,] in an attempt to throw
on the people of Western Missouri the entire
responsibility for these disturbances.
The subject having been referred to the Committee on Territories, we have two reports. That
of the minority is founded on theory, differing
from all others, and affirms that the acts of all
parties engaged in the disturbances were justifi
able under the temptations presented by the Kansas-Nebraska act; or, in other words, that the responsibility for all the acts of violence which have
been committed or threatened rests with the Congress which passed that act. On the other hand,
the majority report places the responsibility where
I am disposed to place it—upon those who operate at a safe distance, and expose themselves to
none o{ the dangers of the strife which they
foment and promote.
Mr. President, the minority report undertakes
to apologize for my constituents, as well as for
those who engaged in the contest at the instigation or under the patronage of associations in the
other States, but does it on an assumption that I
cannot admit, and I feel a stronger desire to vindicate them against that apology than all else which
has been said in this Chamber. I cannot agree
that they have yielded to a temptation, which it
is said this law presented, and the encouragement
it gave to acts of violence and disorder; and that
they have been unable to restrain themselves
when unprovoked by assaults from another quarter; nor will I consent to accept for them a defense
intended for their assailants, and which for that
purpose only, regards the acts of both parties as
justifiable, if not praiseworthy.
In order to sustain the conclusions of the minority report, its author goes back a great distance, and brings under review " the action of
Congress in relation to all those thirteen Territories" which are now States of the Union, and
affirms that " it was conducted on a uniform principle to settle by a clear provision the law in relation to the subject of slavery, by which it was
expressly prohibited or allowed to remain, not
leaving it in any one of those cases open to controversy—that this was done under a power too
clear to be doubted, and resulted in securing peace
and prosperity—that by the act of the 6th of
March, 1820, a contract was made that Missouri
should be admitted without prohibition, and
slavery forever abolished in the rest of the territory
ceded by France, north and west of that State—
that under this arrangement Missouri was admitted